That is called an RTS, This game is NOT an RTS in any way and should not be made into one at all.
Think of it as Kerret Plus.
Kerret Extra Strength.
Kerret Ultra Strength.
Kerret Prescription Strength.
Kerret with more B-carotene.
Super Kerret.
Kerret with more strategy.
PC is communicating a lot more than that. It also doesn't end there. Millions of calculations performed every minute serverside transmitted back to client side and vice versa. The game engine was not optimized for those types of massive fights and it isn't a simple "fix" to suddenly make it optimized.
You are comparing to games like quake using sprites without real time rendering and shadows to a game that utilizes quite a few post process render effects. This is apples to oranges.
From your speech about bandwidth, you don't seem to have much technical knowledge on serverside vs clientside.
Sprites or shadows, the Server doesn't communicated with your computer over the internet graphical details.
It's not the fault of the game that you don't see the complexity involved in the game. There is tactical depth, not strategic depth. Do you understand the difference?
Instead of manipulating NPCs and capturing huge bases, you are regulating energy levels, making tactical maneuvers, synchronising spikes and debuffs with teammates, passing buffs and heals, managing cloaks, running crowd control and a whole host of other things. If you choose to simply ignore all this and see it as simply as than 'shooting people in the face', the problem is with you, not the game.
Nevertheless, I did not say that your idea would be all bad. Indeed, I said it had some merit, and could be an improvement. You have repeated that point over and over, and I already said I agree. However, there is a little something called cost-benefit analysis, and practicality studies. Your idea could benefit somewhat. But it is not practical based on this game's engine.
What you suggest on the scale you want is not something you add on to a game. It's something to build a game from scratch to be. And this game is not it. Whether I want it or you want it is irrelevant unless you can convince others that your idea is practical.
TL;DR : No matter how good your idea is, it will not receive support unless it is practical and feasible. And that is what you are lacking here. Prove that the idea is practical, that it is possible in this game's engine capabilities, and you will persuade more effectively.
You know in the first 3 months, StarCraft2 sold 3 million copies. Not because individual units had such great graphical and tactical detail and control, but as a plurality players like it.
The game's engine can handle it fine. There are several hundred NPC+Players+objects floating around Earth space dock right now.
You know in the first 3 months, StarCraft2 sold 3 million copies. Not because individual units had such great graphical and tactical detail and control, but as a plurality players like it.
Uh-huh. And while Starcraft 2 has sold 4.6 million copies so far, Diablo III (a hack-n-slash RPG, a prime example of 'mindless combat') has sold 6.8 million (as of mid-2012). Indeed, it exceeded 3.5 million sales in the first 24 hours. They are two different genres that have large audiences that like the sort of gameplay they provide. There are players who like one type of gameplay, and players who like a different type. Simple as that.
Neither type should be looked down upon or designated as "true pvp". They're just 2 different things.
The game's engine can handle it fine. There are several hundred NPC+Players+objects floating around Earth space dock right now.
Well, at least you're meeting the argument now. However, that is just plain exaggeration. If you knew how to look at zones, there is a maximum of 50 players that can exist in a single instance of ESD space. NPCs are most definitely fewer. The only way you would get "hundreds" of objects in a single zone would be for every player to be a carrier and launch fighters. In that case, you would most definitely see reduced performance.
Even if ESD could actually hold hundreds of players, you forget that it isn't a combat zone. You don't have the engine having to cope with abilities, anomalies, warp plasma, pets, explosions, buffs, debuffs, weapons fire, etc. All these create a drastic increase in the amount the engine has to cover.
If you want a true test of the game engine's limits, play a round of Starbase Fleet Defense sometime. Only 20 players are involved, and yet it's already starting to lag! Just imagine what hundreds of players in the same instance would do.
TL;DR: Your scaling is off. Maybe hundreds of players in different instances would work, but certainly not all in the same zone. Perhaps that should be your compromise.
I thought the limit for zones, was around 76, as I've been to ESD, Q's Wonderland, and a few other places, that listed having up to 75 players, and being available to transfer into. Did they reduce the amount recently?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
...effects the video card, not bandwidth. I'd be happy to have lower video settings with more players than high video settings and 1 squad vs 1 squad mini-battles.
Zoom into 1 unit in StarCraft2, it's got the video/effects detail of a 10 year old FPS game.
Whenever I get into a big battle in Planetside2, I lower the graphic settings. How unfortunate the game engine doesn't automatically do that. Instead I've got to open up options, click over here, then click that over there, then click that over there.... Battles in PS2 range from skirmishes to slugfest-get-nowhere-fasts, and so do your frames per second range from good to slideshow, if you don't touch the video settings.
Now let's talk about Empire Total War. Now there's a miracle of software technology. You've got 20 times more units than Starcraft running around and you can do it in multiplayer too. Now how does that happen without overloading your CPU with AI subroutines, or drastically increasing bandwidth?
Another topic here: "Tacs are only for hit and run. Eng is for DPS."
How sad, the only way to balance stuff in a MMORPG is how it effects going face to face and blasting away with another player: DPS and HITPOINTS.
There should be other ways to balance like
-Cargo Capacity
-Crew Capacity
-Cost of manufacture
-Reconnaisance ability
-Top Speed, interception ability
Arena maps are too small for "interception ability" or "recon ability", have no resource system for "cost of manufacture", have no logistics system for "cargo capacity", and you can't build anything so it's no use having a large crew.
Now if we had a zone that realistically simulates REAL PVP, REAL WAR, than you could very easily balance Cruisers with Tacticals while Cruisers stay Cruisers and Tacticals stay Tacticals.
Or you can go the MMORPG route, where every class and every ship does the same exact thing as every other class and every other ship. Sure you're gonna be pushing different buttons on the keyboard but essentially they are all exactly the same thing. It's no wonder these MMORPG companies have resorted to selling different costumes and skins, players want to feel different. It's all so sad.
...effects the video card, not bandwidth. I'd be happy to have lower video settings with more players than high video settings and 1 squad vs 1 squad mini-battles.
Zoom into 1 unit in StarCraft2, it's got the video/effects detail of a 10 year old FPS game.
Whenever I get into a big battle in Planetside2, I lower the graphic settings. How unfortunate the game engine doesn't automatically do that. Instead I've got to open up options, click over here, then click that over there, then click that over there.... Battles in PS2 range from skirmishes to slugfest-get-nowhere-fasts, and so do your frames per second range from good to slideshow, if you don't touch the video settings.
Now let's talk about Empire Total War. Now there's a miracle of software technology. You've got 20 times more units than Starcraft running around and you can do it in multiplayer too. Now how does that happen without overloading your CPU with AI subroutines, or drastically increasing bandwidth?
Asdfghjkll....I already said bandwidth has nothing to do with it. You keep comparing apples and oranges - RTS games which have been designed to cope with large amounts of non-complex objects, which have been designed with low detail, and RPG games which have been designed to cope with small numbers of more complex objects, which have been designed with high detail. Lower video settings? Sure, you can set them to lowest, but the engine itself (graphical and codebase) will not be able to cope.
Edit: Never mind, no point arguing. But all this boils down to just two points.
1. Some people actually prefer arena-style combat, and this preference is in no way inferior or 'less real' than your preference of RTS-style combat. This is subjective judgement.
2. This game's graphics and code engine (not bandwidth, not latency) is incapable of handling the 'hundreds' of players you imagine. Note the non-existence of games involving large scale (hundreds of players e.g. Planetside 2 and EVE Online) combined with NPC commands (multiple NPC units controlled per player, e.g. Starcraft 2, any RTS game). If you were to introduce RTS elements on a smaller scale (e.g. up to 10 players in an instance), then it might work.
As an aside, and as something likely to result in hate - I'm kind of surprised that Ground doesn't get revamped into a MOBA type thing...imho, it's more fitting than something like that for Space.
edit: Not that I'd be any more likely to bother with Ground, but it was just a curious thought that I felt the need to share.
This reminds me of Armada Online, a lesser known isometric sci fi mmo, which had this MOBA PvP thing known as Neutral Zone, although its a little different than the usual MOBA. I liked the model better than any MOBA (Read, LoL/DoTA) I'ved played.
You had two factions; a starbase and 5 players on each side with 3 lanes (ergo same as LoL or any other MOBA) and the goal is to destroy the enemy starbase. But there are no 'towers' in the lanes to begin with; instead they must be built so that more and more minions from your faction can spawn (our case, NPC starhips) and traverse the map towards the enemy starbase. Players must escort and protect construction ships from enemy NPCs (our case, say, the borg or whatever) until they arrive at a resource node so it can build a tower (our case, outpost).
The minions, or starships, would heavily outmatch a player. You must have friendly minion support to fight enemy minions.
There was also an resource harvesting->upgrade mechanic where at the starbase, the NPCs slowly harvested resources which built up a meter. Players could assist in the harvesting so the meter would fill up faster. If the meter filled up a tick, all NPCs and players on the side had their stats upgraded.
The thing I liked about it was that low leveled players could fight on an even-ish playing field with high levels and so everyone also could fill a role. Low level players could (and smartly would) help with the harvesting so everyones stats would increase or escort the construction ships so that outposts could be built faster. High level or skilled players could 'jungle' or prey on enemy players/NPCs or minions to gain currency to spend on buffs for their ship.
If there was a stalemate after a set amount of time, I think an hour?, then the starbases would 'warp' out so you had no NPC support.
This reminds me of Armada Online, a lesser known isometric sci fi mmo, which had this MOBA PvP thing known as Neutral Zone, although its a little different than the usual MOBA. I liked the model better than any MOBA (Read, LoL/DoTA) I'ved played.
You had two factions; a starbase and 5 players on each side with 3 lanes (ergo same as LoL or any other MOBA) and the goal is to destroy the enemy starbase. But there are no 'towers' in the lanes to begin with; instead they must be built so that more and more minions from your faction can spawn (our case, NPC starhips) and traverse the map towards the enemy starbase. Players must escort and protect construction ships from enemy NPCs (our case, say, the borg or whatever) until they arrive at a resource node so it can build a tower (our case, outpost).
The minions, or starships, would heavily outmatch a player. You must have friendly minion support to fight enemy minions.
There was also an resource harvesting->upgrade mechanic where at the starbase, the NPCs slowly harvested resources which built up a meter. Players could assist in the harvesting so the meter would fill up faster. If the meter filled up a tick, all NPCs and players on the side had their stats upgraded.
The thing I liked about it was that low leveled players could fight on an even-ish playing field with high levels and so everyone also could fill a role. Low level players could (and smartly would) help with the harvesting so everyones stats would increase or escort the construction ships so that outposts could be built faster. High level or skilled players could 'jungle' or prey on enemy players/NPCs or minions to gain currency to spend on buffs for their ship.
If there was a stalemate after a set amount of time, I think an hour?, then the starbases would 'warp' out so you had no NPC support.
Seems a little too mission focused and questy. I was thinking more open and sandboxy.
Like if you're in a raider that can cloak, you can either join your team in head to head slugfests which wouldn't exactly be great for a raider ship, or you could recon enemy positions, or you can hit and run against enemy NPC convoy ships enemy players set up (the same way players setup pickup and drop off points for SCV's in StarCraft)....
Again back to the RTS StarCraft example, the rules are actually very simple but what the players do with it can spawn many different tactics and strategies; the complete opposite of MMORPG's where developers control player behavior like a Tyrant.
if its done right its fine.
however, current game designers keep TRIBBLE up the flow of the game with either bad mechanics, out of balance weapons, bad map design and cluttering up the flow of play with stupid TRIBBLE like 'killstreaks'.
which is why ut > cod
It's impossible for a MMORPG to NOT TRIBBLE up mechanics and balance weapons properly in arena PVP.
In PVE a MMORPG sets up conditions for characters to differentiate themselves from other characters/classes. As soon as they step into a PVP arena they have to be made equal.
Before every MMORPG was WOW-cloned, how did your typical Everquest-clone differentiate characters? Strength=carry more, some characters traveled faster, some characters could tank more but their down time was atrocious, some characters could craft better but their combat abilities were lower; all of this would work just fine and dandy in a REAL TIME STRATEGY environment not an ARENA environment.
Comments
~The Eleventh Order~
11thOrder Youtube
Think of it as Kerret Plus.
Kerret Extra Strength.
Kerret Ultra Strength.
Kerret Prescription Strength.
Kerret with more B-carotene.
Super Kerret.
Kerret with more strategy.
Don't you like Kerret?
Sprites or shadows, the Server doesn't communicated with your computer over the internet graphical details.
You know in the first 3 months, StarCraft2 sold 3 million copies. Not because individual units had such great graphical and tactical detail and control, but as a plurality players like it.
The game's engine can handle it fine. There are several hundred NPC+Players+objects floating around Earth space dock right now.
Uh-huh. And while Starcraft 2 has sold 4.6 million copies so far, Diablo III (a hack-n-slash RPG, a prime example of 'mindless combat') has sold 6.8 million (as of mid-2012). Indeed, it exceeded 3.5 million sales in the first 24 hours. They are two different genres that have large audiences that like the sort of gameplay they provide. There are players who like one type of gameplay, and players who like a different type. Simple as that.
Neither type should be looked down upon or designated as "true pvp". They're just 2 different things.
Well, at least you're meeting the argument now. However, that is just plain exaggeration. If you knew how to look at zones, there is a maximum of 50 players that can exist in a single instance of ESD space. NPCs are most definitely fewer. The only way you would get "hundreds" of objects in a single zone would be for every player to be a carrier and launch fighters. In that case, you would most definitely see reduced performance.
Even if ESD could actually hold hundreds of players, you forget that it isn't a combat zone. You don't have the engine having to cope with abilities, anomalies, warp plasma, pets, explosions, buffs, debuffs, weapons fire, etc. All these create a drastic increase in the amount the engine has to cover.
If you want a true test of the game engine's limits, play a round of Starbase Fleet Defense sometime. Only 20 players are involved, and yet it's already starting to lag! Just imagine what hundreds of players in the same instance would do.
TL;DR: Your scaling is off. Maybe hundreds of players in different instances would work, but certainly not all in the same zone. Perhaps that should be your compromise.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
...effects the video card, not bandwidth. I'd be happy to have lower video settings with more players than high video settings and 1 squad vs 1 squad mini-battles.
Zoom into 1 unit in StarCraft2, it's got the video/effects detail of a 10 year old FPS game.
Whenever I get into a big battle in Planetside2, I lower the graphic settings. How unfortunate the game engine doesn't automatically do that. Instead I've got to open up options, click over here, then click that over there, then click that over there.... Battles in PS2 range from skirmishes to slugfest-get-nowhere-fasts, and so do your frames per second range from good to slideshow, if you don't touch the video settings.
Now let's talk about Empire Total War. Now there's a miracle of software technology. You've got 20 times more units than Starcraft running around and you can do it in multiplayer too. Now how does that happen without overloading your CPU with AI subroutines, or drastically increasing bandwidth?
How sad, the only way to balance stuff in a MMORPG is how it effects going face to face and blasting away with another player: DPS and HITPOINTS.
There should be other ways to balance like
-Cargo Capacity
-Crew Capacity
-Cost of manufacture
-Reconnaisance ability
-Top Speed, interception ability
Arena maps are too small for "interception ability" or "recon ability", have no resource system for "cost of manufacture", have no logistics system for "cargo capacity", and you can't build anything so it's no use having a large crew.
Now if we had a zone that realistically simulates REAL PVP, REAL WAR, than you could very easily balance Cruisers with Tacticals while Cruisers stay Cruisers and Tacticals stay Tacticals.
Or you can go the MMORPG route, where every class and every ship does the same exact thing as every other class and every other ship. Sure you're gonna be pushing different buttons on the keyboard but essentially they are all exactly the same thing. It's no wonder these MMORPG companies have resorted to selling different costumes and skins, players want to feel different. It's all so sad.
Soooooo sad
so sad
Asdfghjkll....I already said bandwidth has nothing to do with it. You keep comparing apples and oranges - RTS games which have been designed to cope with large amounts of non-complex objects, which have been designed with low detail, and RPG games which have been designed to cope with small numbers of more complex objects, which have been designed with high detail. Lower video settings? Sure, you can set them to lowest, but the engine itself (graphical and codebase) will not be able to cope.
Edit: Never mind, no point arguing. But all this boils down to just two points.
1. Some people actually prefer arena-style combat, and this preference is in no way inferior or 'less real' than your preference of RTS-style combat. This is subjective judgement.
2. This game's graphics and code engine (not bandwidth, not latency) is incapable of handling the 'hundreds' of players you imagine. Note the non-existence of games involving large scale (hundreds of players e.g. Planetside 2 and EVE Online) combined with NPC commands (multiple NPC units controlled per player, e.g. Starcraft 2, any RTS game). If you were to introduce RTS elements on a smaller scale (e.g. up to 10 players in an instance), then it might work.
I'm through.
edit: Not that I'd be any more likely to bother with Ground, but it was just a curious thought that I felt the need to share.
You had two factions; a starbase and 5 players on each side with 3 lanes (ergo same as LoL or any other MOBA) and the goal is to destroy the enemy starbase. But there are no 'towers' in the lanes to begin with; instead they must be built so that more and more minions from your faction can spawn (our case, NPC starhips) and traverse the map towards the enemy starbase. Players must escort and protect construction ships from enemy NPCs (our case, say, the borg or whatever) until they arrive at a resource node so it can build a tower (our case, outpost).
The minions, or starships, would heavily outmatch a player. You must have friendly minion support to fight enemy minions.
There was also an resource harvesting->upgrade mechanic where at the starbase, the NPCs slowly harvested resources which built up a meter. Players could assist in the harvesting so the meter would fill up faster. If the meter filled up a tick, all NPCs and players on the side had their stats upgraded.
The thing I liked about it was that low leveled players could fight on an even-ish playing field with high levels and so everyone also could fill a role. Low level players could (and smartly would) help with the harvesting so everyones stats would increase or escort the construction ships so that outposts could be built faster. High level or skilled players could 'jungle' or prey on enemy players/NPCs or minions to gain currency to spend on buffs for their ship.
If there was a stalemate after a set amount of time, I think an hour?, then the starbases would 'warp' out so you had no NPC support.
Seems a little too mission focused and questy. I was thinking more open and sandboxy.
Like if you're in a raider that can cloak, you can either join your team in head to head slugfests which wouldn't exactly be great for a raider ship, or you could recon enemy positions, or you can hit and run against enemy NPC convoy ships enemy players set up (the same way players setup pickup and drop off points for SCV's in StarCraft)....
Again back to the RTS StarCraft example, the rules are actually very simple but what the players do with it can spawn many different tactics and strategies; the complete opposite of MMORPG's where developers control player behavior like a Tyrant.
Arena-style combat is inferior to everything else that's out there, that's a fact not my preference.
It's an opinion. Simple as that.
It's impossible for a MMORPG to NOT TRIBBLE up mechanics and balance weapons properly in arena PVP.
In PVE a MMORPG sets up conditions for characters to differentiate themselves from other characters/classes. As soon as they step into a PVP arena they have to be made equal.
Before every MMORPG was WOW-cloned, how did your typical Everquest-clone differentiate characters? Strength=carry more, some characters traveled faster, some characters could tank more but their down time was atrocious, some characters could craft better but their combat abilities were lower; all of this would work just fine and dandy in a REAL TIME STRATEGY environment not an ARENA environment.